Question for Arminians and Calvinists on foreknowledge

[Ritajanice]

Jesus was born of Mary, was he not?.....so, how could he be fully Divine?

 

[civic]

Jesus was born of Mary, was he not?.....so, how could he be fully Divine?

Let’s look at how Scripture describes the virgin birth. The angel Gabriel visits the Virgin Mary to bring her the news that she would be the mother of the Messiah. Mary asks, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” (Luke 1:34, ESV). Gabriel’s reply indicates the miraculous nature of the conception: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). The angel points not to any human act but to the Holy Spirit and the power of God as the agency of Jesus’ birth. Jesus would properly be called the Son of God.

Gabriel later repeats the news to Joseph, betrothed to be married to Mary: “What is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:20). Joseph needed this information because, “before they came together, [Mary] was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:18). Accepting God’s word on the matter, Joseph proceeded to take Mary as his wife, but she remained a virgin until after Jesus was born: “He did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son” (Matthew 1:25).

The gospel writers are judicious in their wording to maintain the doctrine of the virgin birth. In his genealogy of Jesus, Luke mentions that Jesus was “the son (as was supposed) of Joseph” (Luke 3:23, ESV). In his genealogy, Matthew carefully avoids calling Joseph the father of Jesus; rather, he speaks of “Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah” (Matthew 1:16).

The virgin birth of Jesus Christ was predicted in the Old Testament: “The Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14, quoted in Matthew 1:22). There is also a possible allusion to the virgin birth in Genesis 3:15, which says that the “seed” of “the woman” would destroy the serpent.

The Bible teaches the preexistence of the eternal Son of God. In Isaiah 9:6, the child who is “born” is also the son who is “given.” In like manner, Galatians 4:4 also teaches the preexistence and virgin birth of Christ: “God sent His Son, born of a woman.” The virgin birth is important because that was the means by which “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14). The incarnation is when the eternal Son of God took on human flesh; without losing any of His divine nature, He added a human nature. That miraculous, history-changing event took place in the Virgin Mary’s womb.

In the virgin birth, the immaterial (the Spirit) and the material (Mary’s womb) were both involved. Just as, at creation, “the earth was formless and empty” and dark (Genesis 1:2), Mary’s womb was an empty, barren place. And just as, at creation, “the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters” (Genesis 1:2), the Spirit of God came upon Mary (Luke 1:35). Only God can make something out of nothing; only God could perform the miracles of creation, the incarnation, and the virgin birth.

The virgin birth is important in that it preserves the truth that Jesus is fully God and fully man at the same time. His physical body He received from Mary. But His eternal, holy nature was His from all eternity past (see John 6:69). Joseph the carpenter did not pass on his sinful nature to Jesus for the simple reason that Joseph was not the father. Jesus had no sin nature (Hebrews 7:26).got ?

hope this helps !!!

 

[Arial]

May I just say, firstly, whatever makes you think I am upset with you?....far from it...try not to make “ assumptions “ because that’s what this is...

The rest of your post doesn’t make an ounce of sense to me...as in through the Spirit.....maybe it will at a later date maybe it won’t....I can’t understand confusion, and I find your post here full of confusion...as I’m sure you find mine the same.

Rather than carry on in the discussion/ confusion ....it’s best I leave it here, because I don’t want to create more confusion....thank you for voicing your opinion/ belief as did I, on the subject matter...

My post, with the exception of the place where I did not proof read, makes perfect sense. It may be hard to understand if someone comes to it with a firmly fixed, unmovable view. That does cause some to be confused because they can't see outside the "box" they are in but only through it. However, when one is unable to understand what is being said it could be that it is a place where they try to get inside what is said (just in case there is any gold there to mine). To put forth an effort to understand it. That way they can measure it fairly and without the prejudice of a belief already firmly fixed, as to whether or not it stands up to the whole counsel of God. As opposed to one scripture isolated from the whole counsel of God (all of scripture)being used to fix in the mind a belief that may be incorrect. Rather than just dismissing something as being confusing, and therefore never pondering it.

IOW not approaching the word or what people say about it and measuring it against nothing but what you already believe. As though all beliefs are equally valid and actual truth is unattainable. Just trying to help. We all wear those same shoes from time to time.

 

[Arial]

Yes the Godhead ( Trinity ) has One will. Christ has 2 wills both a Divine will ( exactly the same will as the Father and Holy Spirit ) and a human will that was in subjection to the Divine will. The will is associated with the nature, not the Person. God is 3 Persons with One Divine nature and will. Many are not understanding the Hypostatic Union of the Person of Christ. It can lead to many errors and assumptions about Jesus. I have posted Scripture, POV's and the Creeds that affirms the above to be true and which also refuted many heresies concerning Christ in those ecumenical councils from the early church.

Yes, and the human will of Jesus was always in agreement with the Father for He did not have the fallen nature that we have. Some on here seem to be confusing feelings, human feelings and emotions, with the will. Among other things.

 

[Eleanor]

Backwards. The nature is not the Person- that is the error with both unitarianism and nestorianism.

Chalcedon Constantinople and Athanasian Creeds all support me, not you and your view on nature and person.

You are not adequately informed of the historical philosophy of the human person.

The nature is the essence of the person.
Jesus had two natures, making the essence of his person dual, divine and human.

 

[civic]

Yes, and the human will of Jesus was always in agreement with the Father for He did not have the fallen nature that we have. Some on here seem to be confusing feelings, human feelings and emotions, with the will. Among other things.

Yes you are correct about the will.

 

[civic]

You are not adequately informed of the historical philosophy of the human person.

The nature is the essence of the person.
Jesus had two natures, making the essence of his person dual, divine and human.

You are speaking out of both sides. You have gone on record saying Jesus is 2 persons becaue the nature is the person. I corrected you with the 3 creeds and got questions about your view is the exact same as Nestorious. You cannot have it both ways and say Jesus is both one person and 2 persons.

 

[ReverendRV]

For the readers here who would like to know the heresy known as Nestorianism- see here for got ?

The Nestorians are followers of Nestorius (c. AD 386–451), who was Archbishop of Constantinople. Nestorianism is based on the belief put forth by Nestorius that emphasized the disunity of the human and divine natures of Christ. According to the Nestorians, Christ essentially exists as two persons sharing one body. His divine and human natures are completely distinct and separate. This idea is not scriptural, however, and goes against the orthodox Christian doctrine of the hypostatic union, which states that Christ is fully God and fully man in one indivisible Person. God the Son, Jesus Christ, took on a human nature yet remained fully God at the same time. Jesus always had been God (John 8:58; 10:30), but at the Incarnation Jesus also became a human being (John 1:14).

In the first few centuries of the church, a great debate arose: what is the exact nature of Christ? How can a being be completely divine and completely human? In the West, the Roman Catholic Church decreed Jesus to be “two natures in one person,” and went on to other things. In the East, the definition of Christ’s nature was as much about politics as it was about religion, and the discussion went on far longer.

The Alexandrines, so named because the political loyalties of most who held the view were Alexandrian, were “monophysites.” They insisted that Jesus was, above all, divine. He was the teacher of divine truth and, in order to have had that truth, must have been primarily divine. To emphasize His humanity over His deity led to unthinkable assertions like “God got tired, injured, hungry, thirsty, and then died.” Apollinaris of Laodicea summarized the thought by saying the Word of God took the place of a rational soul so that a human body could preach the truth of God; the body was a mouthpiece.

The Antiochenes from Antioch thought this was ridiculous. A sacrifice that was not fully human could not redeem humans. Antiochenes were “dyophysites.” The Godhead dwelt in Jesus, no doubt, but not in any way that undermined His humanity. Jesus’ two natures were distinct from one another—although no one could precisely explain what that meant.

When Constantine had moved the political capital from Rome to Byzantium (later Constantinople), the church of the West centralized into the religious and political power of the Roman Catholic Church. The church of the East didn’t have that chance. They had several important churches spread throughout the region, each led by their own bishops. Alexandria and Antioch were two of the oldest and most important, but the church in Constantinople was considered as close to Rome as the East had. The clergy of Alexandria and Antioch constantly fought over the bishopric in Constantinople in hopes of uniting the scattered churches into a regional powerhouse.

In AD 428, Nestorius became patriarch of Constantinople. He was from Antioch, and his theological (and political) leanings became clear when he declared Mary to be Christotokos (“bearer of Christ”), not theotokos (“bearer of God”). In so doing, he said more about Jesus than Mary. He said that, above all else, the humanity of Jesus must be emphasized, His nature firmly divided, and that He was comprised of “two natures and two persons.” The human nature and person were born of Mary. The divine were of God.

The Bishop of Alexandria, among others, didn’t agree. He and his supporters marched into Constantinople and held a trial that relieved Nestorius of his position. Shortly after, Nestorius’s supporters finally arrived and held a smaller trial that convicted the Bishop of Alexandria. After much theological debate and political wrangling, Nestorius was exiled back to Antioch.

The Alexandrians exerted more pressure on the Antiochenes. The Antiochenes were forced to leave Antioch; Nestorius lived out his days in Egypt. But many of the Antiochenes fled east into Persia, where they were called “Nestorians” whether they had politically supported Nestorius or not.

The church already in Persia had its own problems. The rulers in Persia were quite religiously tolerant, but politically they hated Rome and anything that came out of Rome. The church in Persia carefully explained that they were not the same church as in Rome, and the Persians alternated between persecuting them and leaving them alone. Several Nestorian theologians settled in Persia, where the Persian church heard their thoughts on the two natures of Christ and told them, “Yes, of course, we’ve believed that all along.” So Nestorians were readily absorbed into the local church there.

I'm a simple man. %100 x %100 = 1

It adds up to just one Person...

 

[civic]

I'm a simple man. %100 x %100 = 1

It adds up to just one Person...

100% correct that is Orthodoxy- Jesus being 2 persons is the heresy of Nestorianism that someone is espousing.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

Yes, and the human will of Jesus was always in agreement with the Father for He did not have the fallen nature that we have. Some on here seem to be confusing feelings, human feelings and emotions, with the will. Among other things.

Some of us are reading the text for what it says as well. Now...you *could* say that it's a bad translation. But that doesn't fly now does it? I don't believe in conflicts so I have to just run with it says what it says. But I'm not going to say "that's not what it says" or "it can't possibly mean that".

 

[Eleanor]

For the readers here who would like to know the heresy known as Nestorianism- see here for got ?
The Nestorians are followers of Nestorius (c. AD 386–451), who was Archbishop of Constantinople. Nestorianism is based on the belief put forth by Nestorius that emphasized the disunity of the human and divine natures of Christ. According to the Nestorians, Christ essentially exists as two persons sharing one body. His divine and human natures are completely distinct and separate. This idea is not scriptural, however, and goes against the orthodox Christian doctrine of the hypostatic union, which states that Christ is fully God and fully man in one indivisible Person. God the Son, Jesus Christ, took on a human nature yet remained fully God at the same time. Jesus always had been God (John 8:58; 10:30), but at the Incarnation Jesus also became a human being (John 1:14).

In the first few centuries of the church, a great debate arose: what is the exact nature of Christ? How can a being be completely divine and completely human? In the West, the Roman Catholic Church decreed Jesus to be “two natures in one person,” and went on to other things. In the East, the definition of Christ’s nature was as much about politics as it was about religion, and the discussion went on far longer.

The Alexandrines, so named because the political loyalties of most who held the view were Alexandrian, were “monophysites.” They insisted that Jesus was, above all, divine. He was the teacher of divine truth and, in order to have had that truth, must have been primarily divine. To emphasize His humanity over His deity led to unthinkable assertions like “God got tired, injured, hungry, thirsty, and then died.” Apollinaris of Laodicea summarized the thought by saying the Word of God took the place of a rational soul so that a human body could preach the truth of God; the body was a mouthpiece.

The Antiochenes from Antioch thought this was ridiculous. A sacrifice that was not fully human could not redeem humans. Antiochenes were “dyophysites.” The Godhead dwelt in Jesus, no doubt, but not in any way that undermined His humanity. Jesus’ two natures were distinct from one another—although no one could precisely explain what that meant.

When Constantine had moved the political capital from Rome to Byzantium (later Constantinople), the church of the West centralized into the religious and political power of the Roman Catholic Church. The church of the East didn’t have that chance. They had several important churches spread throughout the region, each led by their own bishops. Alexandria and Antioch were two of the oldest and most important, but the church in Constantinople was considered as close to Rome as the East had. The clergy of Alexandria and Antioch constantly fought over the bishopric in Constantinople in hopes of uniting the scattered churches into a regional powerhouse.

In AD 428, Nestorius became patriarch of Constantinople. He was from Antioch, and his theological (and political) leanings became clear when he declared Mary to be Christotokos (“bearer of Christ”), not theotokos (“bearer of God”). In so doing, he said more about Jesus than Mary. He said that, above all else, the humanity of Jesus must be emphasized, His nature firmly divided, and that He was comprised of “two natures and two persons.” The human nature and person were born of Mary. The divine were of God.

The Bishop of Alexandria, among others, didn’t agree. He and his supporters marched into Constantinople and held a trial that relieved Nestorius of his position. Shortly after, Nestorius’s supporters finally arrived and held a smaller trial that convicted the Bishop of Alexandria. After much theological debate and political wrangling, Nestorius was exiled back to Antioch.

The Alexandrians exerted more pressure on the Antiochenes. The Antiochenes were forced to leave Antioch; Nestorius lived out his days in Egypt. But many of the Antiochenes fled east into Persia, where they were called “Nestorians” whether they had politically supported Nestorius or not.

The church already in Persia had its own problems. The rulers in Persia were quite religiously tolerant, but politically they hated Rome and anything that came out of Rome. The church in Persia carefully explained that they were not the same church as in Rome, and the Persians alternated between persecuting them and leaving them alone. Several Nestorian theologians settled in Persia, where the Persian church heard their thoughts on the two natures of Christ and told them, “Yes, of course, we’ve believed that all along.” So Nestorians were readily absorbed into the local church there.

Precisely. . .we've been here before.

Jesus is one person with two natures, divine and human.
Nature is the essence of a person.
The essence of the one person Jesus is both divine and human, not just divine.
His natures makes the one person Jesus both divine and human.

 

[Arial]

Jesus was born of Mary, was he not?.....so, how could he be fully Divine?

Do you not believe in a triune God? Do you not believe in the divinity of Jesus? Do you believe He is a created being, a creature like us? I am trying to clarify your position so that I know, not as an accusation.

 

[Arial]

My post, with the exception of the place where I did not proof read, makes perfect sense. It may be hard to understand if someone comes to it with a firmly fixed, unmovable view. That does cause some to be confused because they can't see outside the "box" they are in but only through it. However, when one is unable to understand what is being said it could be that it is a place where they try to get inside what is said (just in case there is any gold there to mine). To put forth an effort to understand it. That way they can measure it fairly and without the prejudice of a belief already firmly fixed, as to whether or not it stands up to the whole counsel of God. As opposed to one scripture isolated from the whole counsel of God (all of scripture)being used to fix in the mind a belief that may be incorrect. Rather than just dismissing something as being confusing, and therefore never pondering it.

IOW not approaching the word or what people say about it and measuring it against nothing but what you already believe. As though all beliefs are equally valid and actual truth is unattainable. Just trying to help. We all wear those same shoes from time to time.

@Ritajanice If you are not upset, why do you find that post sad? How about you address the "sadness" of it. Then I will know where I have gone wrong and we can have a conversation about it instead of emoji barbs.

 

[Ritajanice]

Do you not believe in a triune God? Do you not believe in the divinity of Jesus? Do you believe He is a created being, a creature like us? I am trying to clarify your position so that I know, not as an accusation.

You don’t need to clarify my position ...LOL....you can’t teach me Arial...only the Holy Spirit can.....I wait on his guidance and with the utmost respect...it ain’t coming from you...

 

[Eleanor]

I am saying Jesus in His humanity was the eternal Son come as one of us. The Son as the second person of the Trinity knew the entire plan, as did the Father and the Holy Spirit, even before the foundations of the world. The Son, as was the plan, came as one of us---Jesus the man. He was never "consulted" about the plan, either as the pre-incarnate Jesus or the incarnate Son. He knew the plan,

The human Jesus did not know of the plan prior to his birth, at which time he was informed of it, not taken into counsel to form the plan.

as did the Father and Holy Spirit, each playing a distinct role in the redemption and perseverance of the saints. They were all always in agreement. Jesus was not sent here and did not come here blind, and deaf, and dumb, learning the plan as it unfolded, and then agreeing to obey the Father moment by unfolding moment. He came to be obedient as a man, one of us. So that He would qualify as the perfect sacrifice, the perfect substitute for our sins, paying for them Himself, satisfying God's justice against our sins.

 

[Ritajanice]

He came to be obedient as a man, one of us. So that He would qualify as the perfect sacrifice, the perfect substitute for our sins, paying for them Himself, satisfying God's justice against our sins.

Amen!!

 

[Eleanor]

Jesus was born of Mary, was he not?.....so, how could he be fully Divine?

Orthodox Christian doctrine is that Jesus was 100% human and 100% divine, due to his two natures.
It's called hypostatic union.
Some are incorrectly dividing the union in his person.

 

[Arial]

Some of us are reading the text for what it says as well. Now...you *could* say that it's a bad translation. But that doesn't fly now does it? I don't believe in conflicts so I have to just run with it says what it says. But I'm not going to say "that's not what it says" or "it can't possibly mean that".

Except there is a reason why that text, though it means what it says, does not mean what some are saying it means. Those reasons have been given and are ignored. So the reason bottom line, is that if it means what some say it means, it completely contradicts the very person of Christ as given in the rest of the scripture, and especially what Jesus Himself had to say about it about Himself. That is why it can't possibly mean what some are saying it means. There is an ocean of difference between what a text means according to God, and it only has one meaning, and all the meanings people give it.

A person certainly doesn't need to argue about it but there are also some who really care about getting at the true meaning of scripture rather than simply saying what I believe is good enough.

 

[civic]

You don't understand that by natural law the nature determines the person.
My dog is animal and cannot be human, because he has an animal nature, not a human nature.
My dog must be animal because of his nature, and he cannot be anything else.
The person of Jesus must he human, because of his human nature, he cannot avoid the laws of nature.

nestorian

 

[Ritajanice]

A person certainly doesn't need to argue about it but there are also some who really care about getting at the true meaning of scripture rather than simply saying what I believe is good enough.

And we get the true meaning of scripture....when the Holy Spirit reveals it to our heart/ spirit......not by continuously forcing us to see it their way....as in the human way......